2023 (6) TMI 649 - MAHDYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

SVLDRS - Power of Committee u/s 128 of the Finance Act, 2019 to review - Period of limitation - Issuance of statement to modify the same suo moto on discovering arithmetical/clerical mistake after expiry of 30 days.

Whether the Designated Committee once have issued statement on 16.01.2020 vide Annexure P/5 u/s 128 of the Finance Act, 2019 review the same after expiry of 30 days i.e. on 28.02.2020?

HELD THAT:- It is settled principle of law in jurisprudence that in cases pertaining to provisions concerning concession/relaxation/discount/rebate, doubt if any has to be resolved in favour of the Revenue. The reason is not far to see. The principal object of a Taxing Statute is to collect revenue for the State. If the said Statute extends a benefit/ relaxation/ concession/ discount/rebate then to ensure that such concessional provisions do not offend the said principal object, the Courts have laid down that such concessional provisions under Taxing Statute are to be read in favour of Revenue in case of doubt.

Moreso, it is further settled in law that whenever a statutory provision prescribes a thing to be done within a certain period of time without further stipulating the consequence of failure to do so, then the provision relating to the time period prescribed cannot be treated as mandatory.

Going by the principle laid down in the case of Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS WOOD PAPERS LTD. [1990 (4) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT] and Novopan India Ltd., Hyderabad [1994 (9) TMI 67 - SUPREME COURT], it is obvious that provision of Section 128 of the Finance Act, 2019 in case of any doubt is to be read in favour of the Revenue. More so, the non-prescription of any consequence for not reviewing the statement within 30 days is a clear indication of the fact that provision of Section 128 of the Scheme is not mandatory. As a necessary fall out, the time period of 30 days stipulated in Section 128 is relaxable if reasons are assigned by the Revenue which do not fall foul of reasonableness clause under Article 14 of Constitution.

The factual matrix herein reveals that the power of review u/s 128 of the Scheme was exercised in public interest of avoiding loss to the public exchequer. Due to oversight, CENVAT CREDIT of Rs.23,52,892/- was not included while computing “tax dues” which led to the ultimate relief of Rs.8,97,037.20 under the Scheme, instead of the due amount of Rs.26,71,509/-. If this oversight was not detected and remedied, the Revenue would have been put to loss of Rs.17,74,472.20 (Rs.26,71,509.00 – Rs.8,97,037.20).

The reason assigned for delayed review cannot be termed as arbitrary and thus is saved from being sacrificed at the alter of Article 14 of the Constitution - it is obvious that the action of the Revenue which is impugned herein cannot be found fault with.

Petition dismissed.